Hindutva by Savarkar -Part 2: The dilemma of Hindu and Sindhu
This is in continuation of my book review of Hinduvtva by Savarkar. In Part-1, I covered the cover page and indicating the vision of the author. Now we will understand another important aspect of the book — The dilemma around the word Hindu and Savarkarji’s views around it in his book.
The word “Hindu” was not easy to define or conceive. We can see Savarkarji’s dilemma throughout the book. Whether it was Persians who were responsible for it as Avestans (Iranians) had a habit of spelling “S” as “H” (“Sindhu” to “Hindu”) or whether it came from Prakrit (a form of Sanskrit), it has been left unresolved. The recognition of the word “Hindu” is important for the identity of Hindutva. It was a painful decision but after going through various options, it seems that Savarkarji finally accepted the word “Hindu” to identify the land and people who live here.
I have given due respect to the knowledge and wisdom of Savarkarji. Hence I did some research on this. The ancient Persians (Avestan) did have the word starting “S” and phonetics included it but things changed later. As of now, most research journals indicate it is Persians are responsible, and some copied Savarkar’s version in references to indicate a different understanding which is not established. Yes, I somehow tend to agree that Greeks and Romans had challenges with the word “H” and hence Hindus became Indus (possibly). So Sindhus, Hindus, and Indus point to the people, land, and beliefs who lived in this region. The latest research argues differently but we will refrain from bringing it here as our scope of the conversation revolves around Savarkarji’s views.
Since Savarkarji did not give a definitive answer to the dilemma of who did it and kept it open-ended, I thought of doing some search on whether Prakrits or anyone else had played any role in this conversion of Sindhus to Hindus. There is no direct evidence that the native inhabitants did this. None of our forefathers seem to have done it as the word Hindu was not referenced anywhere. There is no name to the belief and it was superior practices (Arya dharma) and the people were called Arya (superior people). Santan Dharma has been referred to once in Bhagwat Gita. Dharma is practice and not ideology. The only culture which has this merger of “S” and “H” is Proto-Polynesian (New Zealand now). There is a Proto-Polynesian tribe there “Toroa” who has this concept. I am also able to establish from another Journal that they migrated from India. The journal is written by S Percy Smith, “THE FATHERLAND OF THE POLYNESIANS. ARYAN AND POLYNESIAN POINTS OF CONTACT. №4” (JSTOR)” argues the homeland of the tribe. I did not study the interconnection as the Polynesian migration was a recent phenomenon from 1300 AD onwards. Another reference to this could be some people in Upper Assam in India, who also mix “S” with “H” as they read “Sibsagar” as “Hibhagar”. But whether it can create an impact so big that “Sapta Sindhus” (of Rigveda) will become “Hapta Hindus” later, is far more difficult to conceive. Sanskrit, the language itself starts with “S” (not read as Hanhkrit) and many of Rigveda’s Hymes will make no sense if we mix “S” from “H”. Hence I am able to discard the theory that it was us for now and agree that Persians gave the name which is used today.
Was the entire dilemma Savarkarkji was having because of a name which he is adopting had Persian background? Did it come in a conflict with some concept or ideology which he wanted to establish but was unable to discard? The possibility of his lack of acceptance of a Persian given identity can be argued as he has tried hard to connect the land and the people with their identity around Sindhu. The next part will make this argument more clear when we take one step further when Savarkarji asks the question — “What is in a name?” and answers to himself to further express the conflicts going on in his mind. We will cover this in Part-3.
